Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Two men robbed a Chicago savings and loan association. They remained in the bank about five minutes. A bank employee saw one of the men sitting on the passenger side of a departing white 1960 Thunderbird automobile with a large scrape on the right door. Police discovered that the car belonged to a Mrs. Rey, sister-in-law of Simmons (D). She told the police that she had loaned the car for the afternoon to her brother, William Andrews. FBI agents came to the house of Mrs. Mahon, Andrews' mother. The agents had no warrant, and, at trial, it was disputed whether Mrs. Mahon gave them permission to search the house. They did search, and, in the basement, they found two suitcases. One contained a gun holster, a sack similar to the one used in the robbery, and several coin cards and bill wrappers from the bank which had been robbed. Agents obtained some snapshots of Andrews and D. These snapshots were shown to the five bank employees who had witnessed the robbery. Each witness identified pictures of D as representing one of the robbers. A week or two later, three of these employees identified photographs of Garrett as depicting the other robber, the other two witnesses stating that they did not have a clear view of the second robber. Ds were indicted and tried for the robbery. Garrett moved to suppress the Government's exhibit consisting of the suitcase containing the incriminating items. The District Court denied the motion to suppress. Garrett's testimony at the 'suppression' hearing was admitted against him at trial. Five bank employee witnesses identified D as one of the robbers. Three of them identified Garrett as the second robber, the other two testifying that they did not get a good look at the second robber. The District Court denied D's request for production of the photographs which had been shown to the witnesses before trial. All three were found guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed as to D and Garrett but reversed the conviction of Andrews on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to connect him with the robbery. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. D asserts that his pretrial identification by means of photographs was, in the circumstances, so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to misidentification as to deny him due process of law. Both contend that the refusal for production of the pictures shown to eyewitnesses prior to trial was unconstitutional.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co